Douche and Turd

Recently, fed up with my choices among Democrats and Republicans, I became associated with Dan La Botz's campaign for the Senate from the state of Ohio. La Botz is running as the Socialist party candidate for the Senate seat. As part of that involvement, I was introduced to and I signed the Petition for Inclusive Senate Candidate Debates in Ohio. This evening, I and others who signed the petition received an email message from Bruce Winges of the Akron Beacon Journal. This was the text of his message:

The Ohio News Organization generally follows the structure used by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which allows for only the major-party candidates to debate. The logic is sound: In a television debate format, when time constraints limit the number of questions and answers to be heard, it is of the utmost importance that voters hear from the two candidates who are clearly the front-runners for the office. While we have and will continue write about third-party candidates when warranted, including them in debates limits Ohioans' ability to hear answers from the top candidates on issues critical to the state's future.

I wrote back tonight, nearly immediately after receiving Mr. Winges' message. This was the text of my response:

Dear Mr. Winges,

Thank you for your response to the Petition for Inclusive Senate Candidate Debates in Ohio. While I understand the logical argument that you have articulated, and it is, as you claim, "sound" from a particular perspective, it is not universally sound. Indeed, this is the logic of privilege and oppression--a logic that many, myself included, would not characterize as "sound." By this logic, those who have great advantages in society are given the opportunity to further those advantages for the simple reason that they have the advantages in the first place. In the process, to quote an old line, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Given, to echo your word, how critical this debate is, at a moment when the state, the country, and the world are witnessing a very significant set of crises that includes deep economic recession, environmental destruction, and escalation of significant and at times violent political animosities, among other things, there would seem to be no better time than now to include alternative voices to the two major parties--the very parties who have played significant roles in orchestrating the set of critical circumstances that we now face. If the Tea Party movement has shown us nothing else, it should illustrate that people on all sides of the political spectrum are not happy with the status quo of the two-party oligarchy. By not allowing alternative voices, particularly out of an argument based on the front-runner status of the Democratic and Republican candidates, you effectively help keep a pair of already aristocratically-endowed organizations in power. The debate becomes the latest in the long line of practices that hand over the reigns (pun entirely intended) to these parties through a process known as kingmaking whereby the political elites along with the heavy cooperation of media institutions, as well as cooperation of other institutions, have extremely high influence over the choices, proposals, and ideas available during an election--often to the point of determining these very things.

Additionally, this kind of practice constitutes exactly the kind of critique that candidates like Dan La Botz bring to table--namely, that the system of capitalism, with its emphasis on profit-making and the acquisition of capital, plays a significant role in reproducing power and equity differences, in diminishing the possibilities for a fuller and more effectively working democracy in which as many voices as possible can be heard, and in perpetuating the kinds of circular logical claims from within the system that keep people from getting real opportunities to see, express, or disseminate critiques that dmonstrate the problems incurred by the sytem of capitalism itself. This is what is called false consciousness and what is called hegemony in a nearly perfect nutshell, perpetuating the curtain over the eyes of the electorate, using appeals to justify unearned power differences so that the electorate--especially those of less privilege--accept these power differences, and keeping the country from finding a fuller democracy.

While I understand the argument that this is just following industry practice, I do not accept that argument. Indeed, as part of classes on culture and communication that I teach, students and I examine exactly how industry practices in all kinds of fields--especially, when we examine popular culture, within media industries--perpetuate status quo relations that perpetuate oppression. Relying on an argument of standard industry practice utilizes the kind of circular logic of oppression that is emblematic of capitalism--the kinds of circular logic to which I alluded above. Frankly, I am disappointed in your use of such a transparently flawed argument, and I urge you and your colleagues on the Ohio News Organization to reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Raymond I. Schuck
Bowling Green, Ohio

When I teach the class on political communication at Bowling Green State University, which I am doing this semester, during the first week we watch the episode of South Park from 2004 titled "Douche and Turd." In many ways, issues raised within the episode seem to relate quite readily to the above exchange. As I hope my response to Mr. Winges above conveys, I think there's more to it than what the episode of South Park suggests; however, I think the episode provides a useful starting point for discussion of concerns with the contemporary two-party system of politics in the United States. Those are exactly some of the concerns that these Ohio Senate debates will fail to address by only including the Republican and Democratic candidates.